MR. MCCURRY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're
going to Lake Tahoe July 26. There. I made news.

Q For the afternoon.

MR. MCCURRY: Okay, bye, see you later. No, the President
will participate in the Lake Tahoe summit to highlight the
administration's environmental philosophies and concerns particularly as
they relate to the Lake Tahoe Basin. Lake Tahoe has been a successful
area for both conservation, the preservation of natural resources,
tourism and economic development, in part because it struck necessary
balances between development and preservation of a treasured natural
resource. There's a lot to learn, a lot to think about, and a lot to
study as we think to the future of that very important and beautiful
part of the West.

Q Will the President avail himself to the recreational
opportunities there?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, it sounds like he is going from Lake
Tahoe to Los Vegas to speak to the National Governors Association
meeting on Monday, the 28th.

Q So the 26th then is a Saturday?

MR. MCCURRY: The 26th is a Saturday, and I think it's a
two-day meeting, 26 and 27, and then on to Los Vegas for the NGA meeting
on Monday. So no play time in Lake Tahoe. It's being announced on the
Hill by some of the affected members of Congress. So we wanted to bring
it to your attention.

Q He wouldn't then return to Lake Tahoe perhaps the
following month to vacation?

MR. MCCURRY: I may not speculate on the President's
vacation plans. As usual, I've said a lot of people are trying to make
their summer plans and it helps when we know the First Family's plans,
and at this point I think there are three separate plans. And at any
point there is one concurrent plan we'll be able to say more.

Q Have we been through this four or five times --

MR. MCCURRY: You all know what the drill is on this.

Q We won't go until the last week of August.

Q Are you finished with your announcements?

Q Uh-oh. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: Wolf's got something up his sleeve.

Q Near miss.

Q No, I just wondered if you have any more announcements.

MR. MCCURRY: We'll give you more on that as we have it.
Do we have a longer piece of paper that has flowery quotes and more on
the -- paper to follow.

Q Speaker Newt Gingrich has just released a letter to the
President that he wrote today complaining about his VH-1 interview
yesterday, an hour on television geared towards young people, and never
once does he raise the issue of drugs, and that the President missed
this important opportunity to discuss what he says is an issue of
burning concern to young people.

MR. MCCURRY: Another slow day on the Hill, I guess. The
Speaker didn't have other -- he's been watching too much VH-1, I guess.
Well, the President will be happy to send him the whole transcript. In
that, the President talks a lot about some of the spiritual importance
that gospel music has played in his life, the source of strength that
he's gotten from some music.

VH-1, if you know anything at all about cable, and maybe we
can help the Speaker a little bit on this, is really geared for an older
audience than the MTV audience. When the President was most recently on
MTV, he had a lot to say about drugs and drug use. He's been talking
frequently and often about the importance of discouraging drug use among
younger people, but VH-1 tends to skew their audience share more to the
age of people in this room.

Q Early 30s?

MR. MCCURRY: Maybe the Speaker -- if he didn't know that,
maybe someone on his staff can educate him further.

Q Mike, is the Speaker a loser boomer --

MR. MCCURRY: A what?

Q -- as a White House official described the demographics
of VH1 as being?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, since I am a VH1 viewer myself --
(laughter) -- I don't know that I would refer to that.

Q Was that loser or lizard?

MR. MCCURRY: Lizard, loser, I don't know. Sounds like a
slow news day. I think the Speaker well knows the President's
commitments on discouraging drug use among young people and maybe that
was written by an over eager staffer or something.

Q Mike, what makes the President think that the FEC can do
anything on soft money when Congress isn't acting on it and they don't
have --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, because in part, through advisory
opinions and interpretations of the '74 act, the current precedent and
body of opinion on the use of non-federal or so-called soft money
developed as a result of FEC actions. So the FEC, in the theory of the
President, could also act affirmatively to undo some of the growth in
the loophole that that provision represents.

It would be preferable, and we have always said it would be
preferable to have a statutory change that would outlaw soft money
as the McCain-Feingold/Meehan-Shays legislation does. But that ain't
going anywhere anytime soon, it looks like, unfortunately.

Q Republicans have made a big issue in commenting on this
story about whether the White House will move to stop union
contributions, involuntary they call them.

MR. MCCURRY: Absolutely. This is -- the soft money ban
the President proposes would also bar soft money contributions by
organized labor, absolutely.

Q What about their paycheck deductions, which seems to be
-- for political activity?

MR. MCCURRY: If money were deducted from paychecks and
then used for soft money contributions, those soft money contributions
would not be allowed on what the President has set forward. Real
straightforward there.

Q Apparently, Mike, the President's proposal would not bar
independent expenditures, however, which tend to favor Democrats.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, that's -- we're talking about soft
money -- you're right, the President's concern and what he intends to
communicate to the Commission about is so-called non-federal soft money
expenditures. He does not explore the separate and unrelated area of
independent expenditures. That may be worth further study. It could
well be worth additional efforts in Congress to consider legislation.

It's not included, in my understanding, current versions of
campaign finance legislation. And, by the way, nothing we would do with
respect to the Federal Election Commission would discourage the
President or dissuade the President from continuing to press ahead to
urge Congress to pass campaign finance. We need comprehensive campaign
finance reform legislation, clearly, but this is a step that we believe
can be taken through the regulatory process to at least get something
going that would deal with some of the loopholes that have opened up in
federal election law.

Q If I could follow that up, Mike, however, Senator McCain
said today that there's not going to be significant Republican support
for a ban on soft money unless independent expenditures is also banned,
since those tend to favor Democrats, whereas soft money tends to favor
Republicans. Why would the President propose a ban on one without the
other, knowing how Republicans feel about --

MR. MCCURRY: Because we're dealing with the apples today,
and maybe we'll deal with the oranges at a future date. But that's
apples and oranges, when you compare the two. They are not directly
related. If they were directly related, I think the Senator himself
would have more directly related those issues in his own legislation,
which he does not.

Q A bipartisan group of congressmen petitioned the FEC to
take up this soft money issue, and the FEC decided yesterday that they
would put this on the calendar for next week. The President's letter
goes up, what, tomorrow -- goes out tomorrow? Is he just catching a
wave here, or is he coming from behind on this? It looks like an
opportunity, or what?

MR. MCCURRY: I think if and when the President addresses
the issue, since as you know we've talked about doing this for some
time, will have some very specific ideas of actions the Commission might
want to consider. Getting it on the calendar is one thing, but actually
proposing specific action is a separate thing.

Q So is this in response to the congressmen's petition to
the FEC that he's acting?

MR. MCCURRY: No, we have been contemplating doing further
work on the soft money issue in front of the Commission for quite some
time, as has been reported for months now. And as I think several
people know, we withheld any direct communication with the Commission
partly at the request of Senator McCain, as a matter of fact, because we
wanted to give him additional time to try to build support for the
reform legislation that he has sponsored and that the President
supports. They haven't been making much headway on the Hill, so we have
indicated -- we've indicated all along that if there wasn't much headway
being made on the Hill, we would need to try to find some other ways to
jump-start the reform process.

Q Mike, as you mentioned this morning, the regulatory rate
will take a lot longer than the legislative route. Is the President
contemplating -- you also repeated that there wouldn't be any unilateral
withdrawal on the soft money issue. Is the President contemplating
perhaps calling for a moratorium by both parties on this again?

MR. MCCURRY: That has happened.

Q I mean, he's done it -- he did it --

MR. MCCURRY: We have fully endorsed the call -- the
consistent call by two consecutive DNC chairs now to have that kind of
moratorium. The Democratic National Committee has challenged the
Republican National Committee to institute that kind of ban. So they're
prepared to do it, the President has endorsed that, absolutely.

Q Is he going to couple this with any kind of a
reiteration of that?

MR. MCCURRY: That is an issue in which the President
supports a challenge that the Democratic Party has made directly to the
Republican Party to let's just both disarm. That's really not an issue
for the Commission. I think the argument he makes to the Commission is
more --

Q I don't mean the Commission. I mean is he going to
couple his release of this letter to the Commission with another public
call for this moratorium?

MR. MCCURRY: Sure, I'll do it right now. The President
will certainly reaffirm his support for the ban on soft money
contributions and reiterate to the Republican National Committee that he
will support and instruct the Democratic National Committee to cease and
desist from taking these contributions if the Republican Party will do
so as well.

Q But in the meanwhile, he'll take the money?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes. We are not going to put ourselves as a
competitive disadvantage. We've been through that issue over and over
again here and you know our thinking on that.

Q But, Mike, as many times as you've said that, I wonder
how you could ask the Republicans to do so by not moving on independent
expenditures, where the Democrats have an advantage.

MR. MCCURRY: Look, I'm not -- you should really, if you're
interested in independent expenditures, look into independent
expenditure activity on behalf of the Republican Party and their
candidates -- Elizabeth Drew has just written a book that focuses on
that among other things -- and look and see what kind of activity there
is on both parties. I'm not an expert here, and that's not an issue
that the President is immediately dealing with.

It is, by the way, not an area that has produced nearly the
problems that the soft money loophole produced in the course of the
1995-'96 cycle. All of your news organizations have been reporting on
that, and the substance -- the most substantive areas of concern,
because of activity in 1996 and 1996, grew out of the soft money
contributions. So it seems to me proper for the President to devote his
attention and focus to an area that has been the dominant area of
concern in the reports that many of you have written about.

Q But producing substantial Republican complaints,
especially in light of the $30 million or $40 million --

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, they're trying to change the issue,
okay. They're trying to change the issue. They don't want to talk
about a ban on soft money. Otherwise, they'd meet the President's
challenge and agree that they would set that money aside and move on.
That would be an important element of reform. They don't want to do it.
And I think Senator McCain has been pretty candid in explaining why.

Q Could you please confirm that Mr. Richard Holbrooke will
be the next presidential envoy for the Cyprus issue?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't believe I need to, because I believe
that's just been announced at the State Department, and the President
obviously supports and welcomes the appointment.

Q As long as you're on diplomatic appointments --

MR. MCCURRY: Yes.

Q -- how about Weld? Are you going to go ahead with the
Weld nomination in the face of opposition by the Chairman?

MR. MCCURRY: I think the President thinks he would make an
excellent U.S. ambassador to Mexico. Governor Weld has been supported
now by a wide range of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate,
including Republican members of Senator Helms' own committee. And for
those who are interested in good, effective representation in Mexico
City, I think there will be a lot of support for the nomination.

For those who are more concerned about intramural
Republican politics, there will probably be some back-and-forth on this.
We hope Secretary Albright can have a good conversation with Chairman
Helms and satisfy any concerns he has and we can move on to a
confirmation.

Q But as the Chairman has observed, he can't get nominated
without a hearing.

MR. MCCURRY: He can -- I mean, we have lots of ways, even
though we sometimes have different points of view with Chairman Helms,
we have lots of ways to move the business of the nation forward. And I
suspect in this matter we can work hard and see if we can satisfy his
concerns and move forward. But, again, Chairman Helms is certainly
mindful of the fact that even within his own committee, his Republican
colleagues have expressed a great deal of public support for Governor
Weld.

Q But are Helms' plans going to hold up the process of
appointments?

MR. MCCURRY: Sure. And then we'll have to talk to him and
work something out.

Q For example -- the appointment for Japan, for example,
is that going to cause any more --

MR. MCCURRY: I have no idea. I haven't heard the Chairman
link Governor Weld's appointment.

Q I mean in the whole process of appointments, is this
sort of thing going to cause a setback that could delay it?

MR. MCCURRY: We nominate and they advise and consent. So
for the advice and consent you have to go ask them.

Q Mike, does the White House support the call by the
Independent Pilot's Association for universal inflation of traffic alert
and collision avoidance systems on planes?

MR. MCCURRY: We support the careful, methodic review that
is going on by the FAA of that issue.

Q Well, Mike, they say it will create delay in the FAA
making the rules. They put them on passenger jets, Air Force One -- why
not the 750 other jets?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm sure the FAA will respond to that.

Q Could you please confirm information that President
Clinton has called a meeting between the Prime Minister Greece and
Turkey during the July NATO summit in Madrid, since Mr. Simitis is
almost ready for compromises -- for over 100 of Greek islands in the
Aegean?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not aware of any plans for any trilateral
meeting of that nature in Denver.

Q Mike, the White House said that --

Q He said Madrid.

MR. MCCURRY: Oh, in Madrid? Madrid, too. (Laughter.)
Denver, Madrid.

Q Tahoe.

MR. MCCURRY: No, I think the next steps -- the steps that
we are aware of is that we do expect direct talks between President
Clerides and the Turkish Cypriot leader Denktash to occur in July in New
York.

Q Mike, on Weld, do you know what Helms' concerns are
specifically? Are they the type of specific concerns that can, in fact,
be satisfied or addressed, or is it just a general --

MR. MCCURRY: The concerns that I heard him express were
the ones that were publicly quoted in his television interview, and I
think they were pretty straightforward as expressed by the Chairman.
They struck us as being more growing out of some of the politics of the
Republican Caucus and the Republican Party than out of any great concern
about diplomacy or Governor Weld's ability to effectively represent the
President, the United States as an ambassador.

Q For example, he's not conservative enough?

MR. MCCURRY: You could certainly draw an inference from
the Chairman's remarks that he had concerns in that direction. So that
leads us to think this is more really about disputes within the
Republican Party, and we think they can resolve those. And I think even
Republican senators understand that the President has some deference due
when it comes to appointing ambassadors.

Q So are you relying on the Republicans, perhaps, to solve
this?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, there are a number of Chairman Helms'
colleagues -- Senator Lugar, Senator Coverdell, Senator Ashcroft,
Senator Phil Gramm, other noted commentators in the Republican Party --
who have spoken very positively and approvingly about Governor Weld.
And they're all out there publicly now, and I imagine they will want to
weigh in with Chairman Helms. We hope they would.

Q Mike, was the White House aware of Senator Helms'
concerns about Governor Weld, or was this something that just appeared?

MR. MCCURRY: He had publicly expressed some concerns about
that and we knew that. But Chairman Helms very frequently disagrees
with foreign policy decisions by the administration; that doesn't
prevent us from dong business and moving ahead.

Q Mike, on this eighth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
massacre, there seems to be a widespread coalition ranging from Nancy
Pelosi and Richard Gephardt on the Democratic side, all the way over to
Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer on the Republican side. Is the White House
beginning to feel the heat in its decision to go forward on MFN for
China?

MR. MCCURRY: This is -- normal trade relations with China
have never prevented us from simultaneously advancing our human rights
concerns and pressing very vigorously and aggressively in a variety of
places to try to change the behavior of the Chinese leadership. We
have, in fact, sometimes paid a price for that in the international
fora, in trade and economic decisions that have been made. And we pay
that price willingly, in part because of the events that did occur in
Tiananmen Square.

Our view has long been that in time a more effective
economic engagement with China through normal trade relations is a way
to remain in a position to have some influence on them as we draw them
more closely into the world community. As they continue to enjoy the
benefits of commerce with democratic market capitalist countries they
inevitably are going to see some of the impact of that system of doing
business infiltrate and have some impact on their own society.

The alternative, of course, is to declare economic war on
China, isolate them, suspend any kind of normal trade relations, suffer
the consequences and, most likely, see China turn in a much more
dangerous direction. And then those who currently are arrayed against
the administration's view would be asking the question, who lost China.
And I think that would be a grievous outcome. The President is
convinced that remaining engaged with them is a way to have some real
impact on the kind of behavior that was so tragically manifested at
Tiananmen Square on this anniversary.

Q Mike, the issue with cloning, the Ethics Commission is
coming out with their final study this weekend. And what is the
President's feeling on this whole issue, especially since the committee
is saying human embryo cloning for research?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the President's views on the general
issue are those that he expressed when he asked his Bioethics Advisory
Commission to look specifically into this issue. They're going to meet
over the weekend. They're going to consider their final report.
There's been some reporting on that, but the general thrust of it is to
be quite properly skeptical about human cloning, just as the President
was when he gave the charge to the commission.

Now, on the specific subject of human embryo research,
remember that in 1994 the President directed the National Institute of
Health not to fund the creation of human embryos for research purposes.
So there is not a federally funded research program that would be
affected by this. And how the commission comes out on that question
generally we'll await the final report to see.

Q Mike, what's the White House reaction -- and I would
stress "White House reaction" -- to the President of the National
Organization of Women opposing Bob Bennett's threatened tactics in the
Paula Jones case?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm just not going to comment on that until
Mr. Bennett speaks further on it.

Q Let me follow up, if I may. What's the President's
position on victims of sexual crimes being questioned about their past
sexual history?

MR. MCCURRY: He supports the versions or provisions of the
Violence Against Women Act that he signed.

Q What does that mean?

MR. MCCURRY: You can see the act and you'll understand.

Q The President said he would veto the supplemental
appropriations bill if it contained the automatic -- what about the
other controversial provisions, like the census sampling issue and
rights of women?

MR. MCCURRY: We have raised a number of concerns about
this. They range in objectionability to having had some senior adviser
veto suggestions made against them to others that are more explicit
coming from individual Cabinet members. But there are a number of
extraneous issues that are tying up this very necessary piece of
legislation. They need to pass a clean piece of disaster assistance
legislation and get on with aiding the victims of the recent damage in
the Plains states who need help, and others who are subject to
assistance under federal disaster declarations.

There is no reason to tie up this legislation with all
these extraneous measures. They have other ways of doing that. The
people who need help need to get the help. The communities that need
help need to get that help. And they ought to just move on and pass the
legislation.

Q Mike, Senator Lott seems to think, though, that he could
perhaps work out some sort of compromise language on this CR provision
that would satisfy the President's concerns.

MR. MCCURRY: We have already demonstrated that we can work
together with Senator Lott to work out differences and come to
agreements. Of course, we can. But that is absolutely no -- that's all
the more reason not to tie up this very necessary piece of emergency
legislation. He ought to let that go ahead to final passage, move on,
and, of course, we would work with him to work out provisions related to
continuing resolutions. It just doesn't have any business being on this
very necessary piece of legislation that affects so many people in so
many communities.

Q On the campaign finance issue, if the President is
really committed to this soft money ban proposal, would he use his
appointive powers to effect a change in the FEC lineup to make it more
sympathetic to --

MR. MCCURRY: They can -- certainly, the things the
President will suggest to the Commission they could take action with the
current Commission. And, of course, we are simultaneously going to look
to find the strongest, best, most qualified, and most expert potential
members of the Commission. But because that has to be a bipartisan
process since there are Republican-suggested nominees as well, we will
obviously need to work with members of the other party to make sure we
have exactly those kinds of nominees.

Q Does he seek nominees who specifically support his plan
and support tougher enforcement --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we'll look for someone who, I think, in
terms of the President's appointees, people who share the President's
general philosophy. I'm a little reluctant to say there is a litmus
test on any particular issue, but, obviously, the President will very
strongly urge the Commission to act in a certain direction, and it's
natural to think that he would want nominees that would understand and
embrace that kind of thinking.

Q At what point is that process now? At what point are
you in the process of --

MR. MCCURRY: I understand that they are still working to
fill the vacancies that exist, but they've got some -- and I think there
are expirations -- are there some terms that expire coming up in the
FEC? So I think we're already anticipating those.

Q So you haven't started looking, or you have candidates,
or where --

MR. MCCURRY: I think they are looking, and they're pretty
far along in the search process.

Q Going back to China, that was a very eloquent
phraseology you used, but couldn't that be used to rethink American
policy towards North Korea and Cuba?

MR. MCCURRY: There are substantial differences in both
those cases. We've done the whole question of why China and not Cuba
before, and I can do that again if you want me to. But with North
Korea, we have a much different set of concerns and issues that reflect
all the things that we are pursuing with them in the very limited
dialogue we have underway with them now.

Q But they're isolated and they have turned inward. We've
isolated them and they are inward and radical-minded --

MR. MCCURRY: They are also -- we are also engaged in a
process that we hope will lead to some kind of talks that would lead to
the ultimate reunification of the Koreas and peace on the Peninsula.
And that's a different process.

Q When the McVeigh jury concludes its work, do you think
that the President will make any kind of gesture or conclusory event to
kind of bring the event to closure?

MR. MCCURRY: I would not rule that out. There's nothing
to my knowledge that's planned currently, but we've been very
circumspect at the direction of the Court in commenting on the case
while the jury is still deliberating. But the President has thought a
lot about it and a little bit of that was reflected in the written
statement we made earlier in the week.

Q Just because there's just been so much emotion
surrounding this issue, and it seems like this next phase is even more
intense than the -- there seems to be a hunger for some statement.

MR. MCCURRY: I think the President really understands
that, but also understands the importance of him respecting the judicial
process that's underway.

Q Realistically, how long could it take the FEC to act on
something like this --

MR. MCCURRY: They could conceivably have a rule-making
process that could move very quickly. The reality is -- and we're not
kidding ourselves here -- the reality is it would take quite some time.
I mean, it would really be better for the commission itself to provide
an estimate. But rule-making procedures of that nature do require some
time. We would hope that they could act expeditiously, but again, we
fully acknowledge that the best possible thing to do would be to change
the statute and to make the ban complete, and we've got a vehicle to do
that, which is Senator McCain's own bill.

Q Mike, I'm kind of hungry for a statement, so can I come
back to this Jones case one more time?

MR. MCCURRY: You can, but I'm not going to help you,
David. And it's quite clear.

Q If this is part legal battle, part public relations
battle, how is the White House faring?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm just not going to comment on that, and
it's not -- it's for you to judge, not for me to comment on.

Q Under the last five years or so, soft money
contributions have gone up dramatically. Hasn't a lot of that been
actually spearheaded by President Clinton, and have any Presidents
raised more soft money than he?

MR. MCCURRY: We had -- both parties raised unprecedented
sums in the '95-'96 cycle. In fact, I think it's now true -- the
Republican Party probably raised slightly more in non-federal money,
they were roughly competitive in the category of non-federal money. But
that loophole in the law is one that I think is of sufficient concern
that a number of people on both sides of the aisle believe it ought to
be closed.

Q Back to the census-sampling question. Where is there
room for negotiation --

MR. MCCURRY: Back to. Did we have a census --

Q You had mentioned sampling when you were talking about
the flood bill.

MR. MCCURRY: Oh, yes, because of the different provisions
or concerns, yes.

Q Where would you find room to negotiate between the
Republican decision not to do sampling and the Census Bureau proposal to
do sampling?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, it's not really just sort of us against
them on that issue; it's whether or not you're going to have an accurate
count of Americans. And I think most -- the technical experts who have
looked at this question say that without some sampling technique, in
certain parts of the country, you're never going to get an accurate
count.

I think the question is, do you really want to have an
accurate census or not. And we think we've made a very good technical,
reasonable, logical argument about why you need that technique. It's
been supported and embraced by a whole range of people who have looked
at the census. And we think in the interest of accuracy, ultimately,
the Congress is going to want to have provisions that allow for an
accurate census.

Q -- if it has not been embraced by the GOP congressional
leadership?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, again, I mean, we'll sell it the way we
sell anything with the Republican Congress. We work through the issue,
consult with them, hear each other out. But what you shouldn't do is
make an issue -- we're talking about this because they're making an
issue like that a barrier to passing this very necessary disaster
assistance relief measure. It makes no sense. They're trying to cram
all -- it's obvious it has nothing to do with fixing the needs,
addressing the needs of people who have faced a natural disaster.

And what we're saying is, let's work on those issues. We
pledge to work though those issues, to consider their concerns, and to
make our arguments and resolve these matters amicably. But that's just
not the way to address the needs of people who are suffering in
communities that need some help.

Two more in the back of the room.

Q Mike, I'm a little confused about your response to David
on the Violence Against Women Act. The act says that in cases arising
from alleged sexual offenses that you can't use the sexual history of
that person in the case, whether it's civil or criminal cases. How does
that mesh?

MR. MCCURRY: In sexual harassment cases, correct.

Q Cases arising --

MR. MCCURRY: Arising --

Q Cases arising from sexual harassment.

MR. MCCURRY: That's a good question to ask Mr. Bennett.

Q Does the President intend to nominate Charles Rossotti
as IRS Commissioner?

MR. MCCURRY: I saw that report, it looked like a good
report to me. But we haven't made any formal announcement.

Q -- nomination come before the commission --

MR. MCCURRY: It's like any other announcement that I never
quite make here. It, you know, will happen sooner or later and by the
time we put out the piece of paper you will have long forgotten about
it. (Laughter.)

Q I know you're trying to dodge this thing, but that's not
really what --

MR. MCCURRY: I'm not trying to dodge it, I'm trying to
tell you I want Bob Bennett to address this issue because I'm not going
to. Can I make myself any more clearer than that?

Q No, but it's not legitimate, Mike, for the President of
the United States to have his spokesman say, my lawyer is doing
something I'm in conflict with, so talk to my lawyer about it.

MR. MCCURRY: David, the President's spokesman said that he
supports the provisions of the Violence Against Women's Act that he
signed. That's a significant comment.

Q So does that mean that the President's lawyer is in the
wrong?

MR. MCCURRY: That means that the President's lawyer is
going to address the issue and I'm not.

Q So is the President's lawyer now not going to do what he
said he was going to do on Sunday?

MR. MCCURRY: I said -- you should ask him that. Why are
you asking me that question?

Q He's unavailable.

Q He doesn't return our phone calls.

Q He isn't answering this question.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, he should. (Laughter.)

Q -- getting to answer the question?

MR. MCCURRY: I think I just did.

Q On a lighter subject, how does the President feel as a
father when his daughter went out to the prom last night?

MR. MCCURRY: He felt like a proud father, and it was a
private moment.

Q And was it a nice time for --

MR. MCCURRY: They had a wonderful time. They went out and
had a private family time and I'm just going to leave it private. Okay.
Thanks.